I stated this is a thread that was fairly similar a few months back. It is not a good idea for him to disable comments for many reasons. One of the most important factors would be how it alienates new viewers. If someone new comes to Phil's channel and tries to watch one of his new videos and wants to respond, how are the supposed to? While this website does exist, a lot of people won't want to come here and sign up just to say "Good Video!". While I think that there is always trouble in youtube comments, it's always best to leave them open.
Not only that, it just seems lazy, maybe even cowardly. The people who generally close their comments with no simple alternative are the ones who are seen to have the biggest problem taking shit from comments. It's youtube, it's going to happen. While Phil gets a lot of shit, I think he just needs to suck it up, because it only makes him look bad, especially when people start to compare him to other channels that have comments permanently disabled.

I think it's a pretty bad idea from a PR perspective as well. What does it look like when a new viewer comes to your channel and can't respond to what is in the video? It looks awful, how are they supposed to get involved? Im with Zorak on this one, bad idea no matter how you look at it.

Oh yeah I remember learning about this shit.
So i'm going to get into this real hard and talk about it for as long as I want.
FIRST POINT:
How can one director be so fucking full of himself to do some shit like this? Cool, a movie, great, just release it in 100 years and call it a day.
But you know who is the one man, the man who has the directing TALENT and SKILL and WORTH to do such a thing?
Robert Rodriguez. This man is a legend, if you have not heard of him, he is the man that had the balls to put this clip in a film. No other director is as proud of their film as this man.
Just watch:
The Art of Robert Rodriguez
Now that you have watched that piece of cinema history, do you know what film that clip is from? Spy Kids.
The man who made Spy Kids is releasing a film in 100 years.
I can't name any other director who has the cinematic RIGHT to do such a thing, other than the man who wrote: "Somebody Ring the Dinkster" into a film.
Also never forget
PUNKT ZWEI:
This entire movie is a product placement film.
The movie was funded by Louis XIII, a type of overpriced Cognac, I don't fucking care it's probably garbage. Not to mention that they are accepting the fact that this fucking movie isn't coming out for 100 years, how does this help them?
Nobody is going to see their shitty film for 100 years, so they basically funded a commercial that won't air until we are all dead.
THE PEOPLE PAID FOR SOMETHING THAT THEY WILL NEVER GET TO USE UNTIL THEY HAVE PASSED ON FROM THIS WORTHLESS PLANE OF EXISTENCE
This is some of the most pretentious shit I've ever heard, and I've watched all of Lars Von Trier's films.
POINT 3:
They tried to "imagine what the world will be like in 100 years".
First off, haha, no.
You are never going to get that assumption right, but to quote Pyrocynical (Here's the link to the video I'm quoting, just for sourcing reasons)
"Are we going to have hovercars? Are we going to have futuristic looking cities in 100 years? No probably not, there will just be another Tesco down the street."
You are making a film where you are "assuming" what the world will be like in 2115, but it's just not accurate whatsoever.
Final Statements:
This movie is probably just a fucking prank tbh.